Re: [OE-core] [RESEND PATCH v3] util-linux: create util-linux-runuser package
On 15 December 2015 at 09:49, Ioan-Adrian Ratiu wrote:
> Split runuser into its own package (previously provided by util-linux).
> Since runuser is compiled only when DISTRO_FEATURES includes pam,
> the creation of util-linux-runuser is also constrained by this.
>
What's the rationale for pulling this out into a separate package?
> PACKAGES += "${@bb.utils.contains('PACKAGECONFIG', 'pylibmount',
> 'util-linux-pylibmount', '', d)}"
> +PACKAGES =+ "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'pam',
> 'util-linux-runuser', '', d)}"
>
No need for conditionals: empty packages are not created.
Ross
--
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [RESEND PATCH v3] util-linux: create util-linux-runuser package
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:34:12 +
"Burton, Ross" wrote:
> On 15 December 2015 at 09:49, Ioan-Adrian Ratiu wrote:
>
> > Split runuser into its own package (previously provided by util-linux).
> > Since runuser is compiled only when DISTRO_FEATURES includes pam,
> > the creation of util-linux-runuser is also constrained by this.
> >
>
> What's the rationale for pulling this out into a separate package?
I need runuser on a busybox image and can't install the entire util-linux
package.
>
>
> > PACKAGES += "${@bb.utils.contains('PACKAGECONFIG', 'pylibmount',
> > 'util-linux-pylibmount', '', d)}"
> > +PACKAGES =+ "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'pam',
> > 'util-linux-runuser', '', d)}"
> >
>
> No need for conditionals: empty packages are not created.
Thank you for this tip, I've modified and sent v4.
>
> Ross
--
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [RESEND PATCH v3] util-linux: create util-linux-runuser package
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:03:03 Ioan-Adrian Ratiu wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:34:12 +
>
> "Burton, Ross" wrote:
> > On 15 December 2015 at 09:49, Ioan-Adrian Ratiu
wrote:
> > > Split runuser into its own package (previously provided by util-linux).
> > > Since runuser is compiled only when DISTRO_FEATURES includes pam,
> > > the creation of util-linux-runuser is also constrained by this.
> >
> > What's the rationale for pulling this out into a separate package?
>
> I need runuser on a busybox image and can't install the entire util-linux
> package.
> > > PACKAGES += "${@bb.utils.contains('PACKAGECONFIG', 'pylibmount',
> > >
> > > 'util-linux-pylibmount', '', d)}"
> > > +PACKAGES =+ "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'pam',
> > > 'util-linux-runuser', '', d)}"
> >
> > No need for conditionals: empty packages are not created.
>
> Thank you for this tip, I've modified and sent v4.
Unfortunately this wasn't right - the package being excluded from PACKAGES was
serving to avoid the libpam dependency when pam was not in DISTRO_FEATURES; as
of this patch we are now building it unconditionally leading to a warning.
Ioan-Adrian, could you please send a patch that changes it back to how you had
it in v3?
Thanks,
Paul
--
Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
--
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [RESEND PATCH v3] util-linux: create util-linux-runuser package
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:52:50 +1300
Paul Eggleton wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:03:03 Ioan-Adrian Ratiu wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:34:12 +
> >
> > "Burton, Ross" wrote:
> > > On 15 December 2015 at 09:49, Ioan-Adrian Ratiu
> wrote:
> > > > Split runuser into its own package (previously provided by util-linux).
> > > > Since runuser is compiled only when DISTRO_FEATURES includes pam,
> > > > the creation of util-linux-runuser is also constrained by this.
> > >
> > > What's the rationale for pulling this out into a separate package?
> >
> > I need runuser on a busybox image and can't install the entire util-linux
> > package.
> > > > PACKAGES += "${@bb.utils.contains('PACKAGECONFIG', 'pylibmount',
> > > >
> > > > 'util-linux-pylibmount', '', d)}"
> > > > +PACKAGES =+ "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'pam',
> > > > 'util-linux-runuser', '', d)}"
> > >
> > > No need for conditionals: empty packages are not created.
> >
> > Thank you for this tip, I've modified and sent v4.
>
> Unfortunately this wasn't right - the package being excluded from PACKAGES
> was
> serving to avoid the libpam dependency when pam was not in DISTRO_FEATURES;
> as
> of this patch we are now building it unconditionally leading to a warning.
>
> Ioan-Adrian, could you please send a patch that changes it back to how you
> had
> it in v3?
Yes, I'll send v5 which will revert the change from v4.
>
> Thanks,
> Paul
>
--
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [RESEND PATCH v3] util-linux: create util-linux-runuser package
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:26:02 +0200
Ioan-Adrian Ratiu wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:52:50 +1300
> Paul Eggleton wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:03:03 Ioan-Adrian Ratiu wrote:
> > > On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:34:12 +
> > >
> > > "Burton, Ross" wrote:
> > > > On 15 December 2015 at 09:49, Ioan-Adrian Ratiu
> > > >
> > wrote:
> > > > > Split runuser into its own package (previously provided by
> > > > > util-linux).
> > > > > Since runuser is compiled only when DISTRO_FEATURES includes pam,
> > > > > the creation of util-linux-runuser is also constrained by this.
> > > >
> > > > What's the rationale for pulling this out into a separate package?
> > >
> > > I need runuser on a busybox image and can't install the entire util-linux
> > > package.
> > > > > PACKAGES += "${@bb.utils.contains('PACKAGECONFIG', 'pylibmount',
> > > > >
> > > > > 'util-linux-pylibmount', '', d)}"
> > > > > +PACKAGES =+ "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'pam',
> > > > > 'util-linux-runuser', '', d)}"
> > > >
> > > > No need for conditionals: empty packages are not created.
> > >
> > > Thank you for this tip, I've modified and sent v4.
> >
> > Unfortunately this wasn't right - the package being excluded from PACKAGES
> > was
> > serving to avoid the libpam dependency when pam was not in DISTRO_FEATURES;
> > as
> > of this patch we are now building it unconditionally leading to a warning.
> >
> > Ioan-Adrian, could you please send a patch that changes it back to how you
> > had
> > it in v3?
>
> Yes, I'll send v5 which will revert the change from v4.
>
Uh oh, I just rebased on origin/master and it looks like v4 was commited there
a few hours ago.
So I'll just send a new patch to introduce the pam conditional on top of the
already integrated change.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Paul
> >
>
--
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
